Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneydiscovery
attorneydepositiondiscovery

Related Cases

McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468, 16 Fed.R.Serv.2d 609
View Case »
SMI Industries Canada Ltd. v. Caelter Industries, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 808, 223 U.S.P.Q. 742
View Case »
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,464
View Case »
Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 56 USLW 2029, 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 273
View Case »
Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan, 193 F.3d 210
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mississippi Bar v. Land, 653 So.2d 899

Facts

The case arose from a civil action where Billy Ray Stevens was injured by a foreign object while driving past Jim Guthrie's home. Stevens alleged that a rock was thrown from Guthrie's lawn mower, but evidence later revealed that Guthrie's son had been shooting a BB gun that day. Attorney Land, representing Guthrie, was aware of the BB gun incident but failed to disclose this information during discovery, leading to allegations of misconduct by the Bar.

On May 26, 1990, Billy Ray Stevens was driving through a residential area in Petal, Mississippi and drove past the home of Jim Guthrie. Stevens, in a deposition stated: “Whenever I went through there I heard a lawn mower and I looked over and I looked back ahead of me and then something hit me.”

Issue

1. Is the evidence clear and convincing that John W. (Jack) Land violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in question? 2. If so, what discipline would be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and applicable law?

I. IS THE EVIDENCE CLEAR AND CONVINCING THAT JOHN W. (JACK) LAND VIOLATED THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN QUESTION? ( Rule 3.3(a)(1) & (a)(2) , Rule 3.4(a) , and Rule 8.4 (c & d)).

Rule

The court applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (a)(2) regarding false statements and failure to disclose material facts, Rule 3.4(a) concerning obstruction of evidence, and Rule 8.4(c) and (d) related to dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The Bar contends Attorney Land, through his handling of this case, and discovery in particular, violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.3(a)(1) (making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); Rule 3.3(a)(2) (failing to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client); Rule 3.4(a) (unlawfully obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counseling or assisting another person to do such act); and Rule 8.4 (c & d) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Analysis

The court found that Land's failure to disclose the BB gun incident and his misleading responses to interrogatories constituted professional misconduct. The tribunal's characterization of the matter as a mere discovery dispute was incorrect, as Land's actions involved dishonesty and deceit that obstructed the plaintiff's access to evidence. The court emphasized that Land's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and warranted disciplinary action.

However, we find that the tribunal incorrectly characterized this matter as a discovery dispute in its early stages, not warranting discipline against Land. The tribunal misapprehended the Rules of Professional Conduct in failing to note that Land's responding to certain interrogatories without revealing the BB gun incident constituted misconduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the tribunal's dismissal of the Bar's complaint and imposed a one-year suspension on attorney Land for his misconduct.

We must reverse the tribunal as to its finding of no misconduct by Land.

Who won?

The Mississippi Bar prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court found that Land's actions constituted professional misconduct that warranted disciplinary action.

The Bar met its burden against Land. We find that Land's actions and conduct constitute professional misconduct.

You must be